DOCSLIB.ORG

The Port Mackenzie Money Pit It’S Time for Answers, Not Investment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Port MacKenzie Money Pit It’s time for answers, not investment. The Port MacKenzie Money Pit The Port MacKenzie project is the latest in a long line of extremely expensive projects undertaken by the Mat‐ Su Borough that have turned into complete financial boondoggles. Growth is something all Alaskans believe in. But pouring money into a bottomless pit is not. The Mat‐Su Borough has a long track record of mismanaging projects funded with public dollars. From the $7.8 million ferry with nowhere to dock to the fancy $4.5 million Ferry Terminal that sits empty and the empty $225 million Goose Creek Prison, Can Alaska continue the Point MacKenzie area in the Mat Su Borough is a magnet for to afford the Mat‐Su bad investments and mismanaged projects. Let’s not let another Borough’s poorly money pit swallow Alaska’s public funds. planned projects? The Port MacKenzie project has never received much support from the general public. Investment in Port MacKenzie was first rejected by the voters of the Mat‐Su Borough in 1989 when they voted down a $25 million bond package. Opposition to this project has remained strong over the years, local meetings frequently draw large crowds of vocal opponents who cite the Mat‐Su Borough’s history of mismanagement and the anticipated runaway costs of the project among their primary concerns. After the bond package was rejected by voters the Borough commissioned a study that the described the Port as “a speculative investment whose long‐term development potential is uncertain.” Despite the findings of their own study commissioned by Temple, Baker and Sloan, the Mat‐Su Borough moved forward with the project anyway and used a loan on a Borough‐owned office building to finance construction of the Port. The Port opened in 2000 but has seen only about a dozen boats at its dock since opening and has been plagued with mismanagement and misinformation from the beginning. The Port has run huge structural deficits frequently losing millions of dollars every year. Now, the Mat‐Su Borough wants to dump another $170 million of Alaska’s public dollars to construct a rail spur to the Port. The Borough continues to push this development despite the history of failure at Port MacKenzie and without adequate information on the economic viability of the Port or its impacts on Alaska’s existing ports in Anchorage and Seward. Page 2 of 15 Port MacKenzie – A Speculative Investment From Day One The Port MacKenzie project was not projected to make much money, even under the Mat‐Su Borough’s own projections. Unfortunately time has shown those grim financial projections becoming a reality. While the Mat Su Borough tried to suppress the findings of the Temple, Baker & Sloan report, the underlying assumptions were clear: this is a risky investment at best. According to this original report, even under the rosiest assumptions, the port would lose tens of millions of dollars for years. After that, it would In November 1989, the start to earn money, bringing in a total of $48 million over the next Anchorage Daily News reported: decade. That’s if everything breaks in the borough’s way: the Mat Su Borough’s Boston based proposed Wishbone Hill mine near Palmer goes into production and consulting firm Temple, Baker & ships through Mackenzie, Healy coal now shipped through Seward is Sloane, Inc. describes the Point switched, and an export industry in Mat‐Su logs and wood chips Mackenzie Port Project as “ a speculative investment whose springs to life. None of these assumptions can be safely made even long term development 15 years later. potential is uncertain” and suggests the borough “carefully Under the most pessimistic assumptions the consultants examined, the consider the full range of port would run in the red every year for the first the first decade, alternative economic options losing $70 million. After that, it would make money for two years a available.” total of about $17 million then shut down as Wishbone played out. The report also notes that two thirds of the economic benefits in the port analysis could come to pass even without a port. 1 To date the Port has run major deficits and not ever come close to turning a profit. The Mat‐Su Borough is now asking the State of Alaska to put good money into supporting their bad investment. Can the Mat‐Su Borough prove that they will finally be able to make a profit if the rail spur is completed? History tells us that profits at Port MacKenzie are unlikely. What Will It Cost to Operate and Maintain Port MacKenzie? The Port of Anchorage is a world class Alaskan deep‐water port capable of safely and efficiently transporting people and commodities. Only 1.5 miles separate the two ports. Railroad service to Port MacKenzie will save only 35 miles.2 Major questions remain about the operating and maintenance costs of the Port MacKenzie rail extension. It is likely that any savings because of distance would be offset by the operations and maintenance costs of tracks, 1 Anchorage Daily News, November 17, 1989, Report Pans Mat Su port, but boosters vow to press on by Stan Jones 2 Benefit‐Cost Assessment of the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension, page 6 Page 3 of 15 installing new signals, and substantial infrastructure required to offload bulk commodities like coal over the steep slopes of the bluff between the rail loop and the dock. Unlike Seward, which offloads coal and loads coal on‐grade to a conveyor system to load dry bulk cargo ships, Port MacKenzie’s challenging geography will require conveyors built to accommodate the steep slopes. The existing conveyor system belongs to a private contractor who is in ongoing litigation with the Borough regarding use of this system. Accurate costs for installing a conveyor and dust mitigation system have not been obtained or described. Even the established infrastructure in the Port of Seward is under scrutiny by local residents, the state DEC and the EPA because of the visual evidence of coal dust release. With its proximity to farmland and dense population centers in Government Hill in Anchorage, the need for modern coal dust mitigation system (like bag houses and enclosed conveyors) cannot be overlooked. These costs have not been properly accounted for and will make it extremely difficult for Port MacKenzie to turn a profit. Proposed rail loop 2200 ft away (.4 miles) and over a 150 ft bluff from the dock and Port facilities. Overcoming these obstacles will cut into profits at the Port. Page 4 of 15 Tides and Ice: A Dangerous and Risky Combination for Shippers Anchorage is a sheltered port that offers safety to moored ship from Cook Inlet’s massive tides and winter ice flows, Port MacKenzie is exposed to both elements making accessing and mooring at the Port a very risky action for ships in the winter months. Port MacKenzie’s master plan states “Once a ship has been docked in waters such as Cook Inlet, with its ice and fast currents, pilots require almost perfect dock alignment in order to hold ships in the moored position.” 3 Per Marc Van Dongen, the Port Director at Port MacKenzie “The hardest part, most critical, is moving it while it’s at dock. The ship will have to be moved 5 times in the course of loading its cargo. We have a heavy current there, we will use 24 lines to tie the vessel to the dock. There’s a lot of force between the current and the ice.4 In February 2005 the first ship to dock at Port MacKenzie had to leave because of dangerous ice conditions while at the same time the port of Anchorage encountered no ice problems.5 In the draft EIS for the proposed Port MacKenzie rail extension, Appendix H, Biological Assessment, Section H.1, page H‐12, paragraph 1 states: “Port MacKenzie facilities include a deep‐draft dock that can be The first ship to ever dock used on a year round basis. In winter months with heavy ice, additional at Port MacKenzie had to tie‐down lines and a stand‐by barge are used when ships are broken leave early due to from their moorings by ice movements.” Because of the heavy ice and dangerous ice conditions. likelihood of ships being broken from their moorings, using Port Strong tides and heavy ice MacKenzie in winter months is inherently dangerous. For any shipper flow make Port to have to plan for this level of emergency back up just to stay tied to a MacKenzie a dangerous dock is a very expensive and risky undertaking. winter port. In February of 2005, the Alaska Journal of Commerce reported: A spokesman for a wood chip manufacturing firm said Feb. 7 his company is considering blocking out several weeks in mid‐winter as shipping dates in the wake of icy conditions at Port Mackenzie that prompted a ship to depart with half its cargo loaded. .. Several days after arrival, with three of six compartments loaded, the captain became alarmed at mounting ice conditions and decided to bring the vessel back to Homer to wait until conditions improved… Officials at the Port of Anchorage said ice conditions caused no delays at that port. “Port Mackenzie lies at a narrower point of Upper Cook Inlet than the Port of Anchorage, and is subject to faster currents, which contribute to ice problems in winter”, Van Dongen said… “Port Mackenzie was planned to operate year‐round, but everyone is aware of the ice... Van Dongen said ice conditions are a chance vessel captains take bringing ships into the area in the winter”.
Recommended publications
  • A WHITE PAPER EXPLAINING the Need for The

    A WHITE PAPER EXPLAINING the Need for The

    A WHITE PAPER EXPLAINING The Need for the 2011 Alaska Legislature to Examine the Financial Plans of the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority By Jamie Kenworthy, [email protected] Bob French, [email protected] February 2011 SUMMARY The Knik Arm Bridge cannot be built unless: (1) the State guarantees repayment of the debt necessary to finance the bridge, (2) that guarantee would need to make up the annual shortfall between toll revenues and expenses, including debt repayment, and (3) the State agrees to spend on the bridge a substantial portion of all federal money available for transportation statewide. The legislature must exercise some oversight on the project because Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA) intends to issue an RFP for the $700 million to $1 billion dollar first phase of this project. If KABATA proceeds as planned, the State will be exposed to considerable financial liability and transportation projects statewide will be jeopardized. Using federal and state numbers, the deficits for the first 10 years of Bridge operations will significantly exceed the approximately $25 million per year that Anchorage or Mat Su have averaged over the last decade on total state and federal spending on transportation. I. Background The Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, a quasi-independent state agency with a Governor-appointed Board of Directors, has a sole purpose to construct and operate the proposed Knik Arm Bridge. The original federal funds with their small state match, total $114 million. Half of those funds or approximately $61 million remains unspent. Since the federal money was de-earmarked, the State of Alaska can decide how it spends the remaining funds, if those funds do not go to KABATA.
  • Port of Anchorage Organization Chart 2012

    Port of Anchorage Organization Chart 2012

    2012 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets PORT OF ANCHORAGE ORGANIZATION CHART 2012 Mayor Dan Sullivan Municipal Manager George Vakalis Port Director William Sheffield Deputy Port Director Stephen Ribuffo Finance Operations & Port Engineer Special Maintenance Projects Stuart Edward Leon Greydanus Todd Cowles Vacant PORT - 1 2012 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets PORT OF ANCHORAGE UTILITY PROFILE 2012 ORGANIZATION The Port of Anchorage (Port) is organized into the following functional areas: Administration, Finance, Port Operations and Maintenance, Engineering, Marketing, and Public Affairs & Special Projects. The Administrative and Finance responsibility entails day-to-day business functions and real estate management. Operations and Maintenance functions include management of vessel movements and dockside activities, general upkeep and operation of the facilities, infrastructure, equipment and security. Engineering is responsible for the capital improvement program. Marketing is responsible for all media advertising and coordinating public outreach, and Public Affairs and Special Projects is responsible for all intergovernmental and media/press relations and any major events involving public participation. HISTORY The Port of Anchorage commenced operation in September 1961, with a single berth. In its first year of operation, 38,000 tons of cargo crossed the Port’s dock. On average, around four million tons passes over the dock every year. The Port of Anchorage is a major economic engine and one of the strongest links in the Alaska transportation chain. This chain enables residents statewide from Cordova to Barrow to take full advantage of the benefits of inexpensive waterborne commerce through this regional Port. The Port and its stakeholder’s have maintained a notable safety record throughout the four decades the Port has been in operation.
  • Cook Inlet Beluga Whales: 3,000 Square Miles of Critical Habitat Proposed

    Cook Inlet Beluga Whales: 3,000 Square Miles of Critical Habitat Proposed

    http://ecoworldly.com/2009/12/02/cook-inlet-beluga-whales-3000-square-miles-of-critical-habitat-proposed/ Cook Inlet Beluga Whales: 3,000 Square Miles of Critical Habitat Proposed Written by Rhishja Larson Published on December 2nd, 2009 The National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed to designate over 3,000 square miles of critical habitat for endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales. Good news for critically endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales: The Center for Biological Diversity announced today that over 3,000 square miles of critical habitat has been proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). » See also: Yemen No Longer Major Destination for Illegal Rhino Horn » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email. Unfortunately, the Cook Inlet beluga whale population has plummeted in recent years. An October 2009 population survey found only 321 whales. Even in the 1980’s, there were reportedly as few as 1,300 of this imperiled species. Cook Inlet beluga whale numbers were slashed by overhunting, and now the species is failing to recover, most likely as a result of increasing industrial activities in Alaska. Cook Inlet is the most populated and fastest-growing watershed in Alaska, and is subject to significant proposed offshore oil and gas development in beluga habitat. Additionally, the proposed Knik Arm Bridge, a billion-dollar boondoggle, will directly affect some of the whale’s most important habitat. Port expansion and a proposed giant coal mine and coal export dock would also destroy key beluga habitat. Senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity Brendan Cummings noted via today’s release that although the proposal is a welcome step in the right direction for the Cook Inlet belugas, industrial development needs to be curtailed.
  • 90% 80% 75% 50% $14 Billion

    90% 80% 75% 50% $14 Billion

    Prepared by McDowell Group for Port of Alaska October 2020 The Logistical and Economic Advantages of Alaska’s Primary Inbound Port Port of Alaska (PoA) serves three Defense missions in Alaska and around critical functions. 1) It is Alaska’s key the world. 3) PoA provides a resilient cargo gateway, benefiting virtually every transportation lifeline that supports segment of Alaska’s economy. 2) PoA is routine movement of consumer goods, critical national defense infrastructure, industrial development and disaster playing an essential role in Department of recovery. Alaska Inbound Freight Profile, 2019 PoA freight, by the numbers . Non-Petroleum Percent of Alaska’s population served by PoA. Total inbound 90% Alaska Freight Percent of total vans and containers Port of Alaska handles 3.1 Million Tons shipped to Southcentral Alaska Total inbound Port of Alaska ports. This containerized freight is 80% eventually distributed to every region 50% 1.55 Million Tons of the state. of all inbound Alaska cargo Percent of all non-petroleum marine cargo shipped into Alaska, exclusive of Southeast Alaska (which is TRUCK 75% primarily served by barges directly < from Puget Sound). 5% Percent of all freight shipped into Alaska by all modes (marine, truck, 50% and air). Value of commercial activity in Alaska $ supported by PoA, as the state’s main 14 billion inbound containerized freight and AIR fuel distribution center. MARITIME <5% 90+% Port modernization will ensure that PoA continues to provide the most efficient, reliable, and timely service possible to distributors and consumers. Relying on other ports would, over the long-term, cost Alaskans billions of dollars in increased freight costs.
  • Transportation Infrastructure Needs in Alaska

    Transportation Infrastructure Needs in Alaska

    S. HRG. 108–349 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS IN ALASKA FIELD HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON OVERSIGHT OF THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS IN THE STATE OF ALASKA APRIL 14, 2003—PALMER, ALASKA Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92–373 PDF WASHINGTON : 2004 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio HARRY REID, Nevada MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BOB GRAHAM, Florida LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN CORNYN, Texaa BARBARA BOXER, California LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director (II) CONTENTS Page APRIL 14, 2003—PALMER, ALASKA OPENING STATEMENTS Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska ........................... 1 WITNESSES Anderson, Hon. Tim, Mayor, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska ................... 20 Angasan, Trefon, Co-Chair, Board of Directors, Alaska Federation of Natives . 10 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 Barton, Michael, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities .................................................................................................... 6 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 Boyles, Hon.
  • ECONOMIC IMPACT of COVID-19 on the CRUISE INDUSTRY in ALASKA, WASHINGTON, and OREGON October 20, 2020 ______

    ECONOMIC IMPACT of COVID-19 on the CRUISE INDUSTRY in ALASKA, WASHINGTON, and OREGON October 20, 2020 ______

    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION _______________________________________________ FACT FINDING INVESTIGATION NO. 30 _______________________________________________ COVID-19 IMPACT ON CRUISE INDUSTRY _______________________________________________ INTERIM REPORT: ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON THE CRUISE INDUSTRY IN ALASKA, WASHINGTON, AND OREGON October 20, 2020 _______________________________________________ 1 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 3 II. Fact Finding Method ............................................................................................................ 4 III. Observations ........................................................................................................................ 5 A. Cruise Industry in Alaska ................................................................................................. 5 B. Anchorage ...................................................................................................................... 11 C. Seward ............................................................................................................................ 13 D. Whittier........................................................................................................................... 14 E. Juneau ............................................................................................................................. 15 F. Ketchikan .......................................................................................................................
  • It's All in the Numbers!

    It's All in the Numbers!

    It’s all in the numbers! Alaska’s Port . Alaska’s Future Port of Anchorage ALASKA’S PORT. ALASKA’S FUTURE. of0% Municipal Property Taxes used to run Port! Municipal Enterprise Fund The Assets 220 Acres The Basics 3 Cargo Terminals 24 Employees 1 Dry Barge Berth 9 Commissioners 2 Petroleum Terminals $ 10M Operating Revenue 1 Small Craft Floating Dock 3 Regional Pipelines - ANC, JBER, Nikiski 2 Rail Spur connecting to Alaska Railroad 2,400 Note: 2011 Dockage Totals Cost of “parking” at the dock. Container Ships: DOCKAGE: Tariff based on vessel length. Carry containerized freight. Common POA container ships 208 Tugs/Barges = TOTE or Horizon Lines 206 Container Ships Break Bulk Ships: Carry uncontainerized cargo. 17 Bulk Tankers 450 Common cargo at POA average number of = cement or drill pipe 8 Break Bulk vessel calls per year WHARFAGE: TARIFF: Cost of bringing cargo to/from the vessel A list of prices for services or taxes. Tariff to/from the dock. Tariff based on weight. set by Commission approved by Assembly. 50,000 2.3 Million 118,000 240,000 Note: 2011 Wharfage Totals Cars/Truck/Vans Tons of break bulk per year Tons of liquid cargo per year 20ft equivalent units bulk per year (containers) per year 2000 Anchorage Port Road, Anchorage Alaska, 99501 Tel: 907.343.6200 Fax: 907.277.5636 www.PortofAlaska.com Port of Anchorage Alaska’s Port . Alaska’s Future ALASKA’S PORT. ALASKA’S FUTURE. 52 Years of Uninterrupted Service! Serving Alaskans since 1961 90% of the consumer goods for 85% of Alaska come through the Port of Anchorage If you eat it, drive it, or wear it, it probably came through the Port of Anchorage first! Receives goods directly from Seattle/Tacoma by barge Mean Low *Businesses Size in *Municipal Low Water Located in Acres Population Facility Information (MLLW) Municipality 220 -35 ft 299,281 17,536 Gantry Petroleum Available Rail Spur Cranes Lines Acres 3 2 Miles 9 8 *Source: www.AnchorageProspector.com *Source: Alaska’s Port.
  • 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake—A Photographic Tour of Anchorage, Alaska

    1964 Great Alaska Earthquake—A Photographic Tour of Anchorage, Alaska

    1964 Great Alaska Earthquake—A Photographic Tour of Anchorage, Alaska Open-File Report 2014–1086 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Comparison photographs taken from the same location on 4th Avenue looking east through the intersection with C Street, Anchorage, Alaska. (Top photograph taken by U.S. Army, 1964; bottom photograph taken by Robert G. McGimsey, 2013) 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake—A Photographic Tour of Anchorage, Alaska By Evan E. Thoms, Peter J. Haeussler, Rebecca D. Anderson, and Robert G. McGimsey Open-File Report 2014–1086 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Thoms, E.E., Haeussler, P.J., Anderson, R.D., and McGimsey, R.G., 2014, 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake—A photographic tour of Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1086, 48 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141086. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
  • Alaska University Transportation Center UAA Institute of Social and Economic Duckering Building Room 245 Research P.O

    Alaska University Transportation Center UAA Institute of Social and Economic Duckering Building Room 245 Research P.O

    Analysis of Alaska Transportation Sectors to Assess Energy Use and Impacts of Price Shocks and Climate Change Legislation Alaska University Transportation Center Alaska University Transportation Institute UAA of Economic Research Social and Photo Authors: Ginny Fay, Tobias Schwörer, Mouhcine Guettabi, Jeffrey Armagost Date: April 2013 Prepared By: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage Alaska University Transportation Center UAA Institute of Social and Economic Duckering Building Room 245 Research P.O. Box 755900 3211 Providence Dr. Fairbanks, AK 99775-5900 Anchorage, AK 99508 INE/AUTC13.03 Form approved OMB No. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestion for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-1833), Washington, DC 20503 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (LEAVE 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED BLANK) April 2013 Final Report (8/1/2009-4/31/2013) 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Analysis of Alaska Transportation Sectors to Assess Energy Use and Impacts of Price Shocks and Climate Change Legislation 309002 DTRT06-G-0011 6. AUTHOR(S) Ginny Fay, Tobias Schwörer, Mouhcine Guettabi, Jeffrey Armagost 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8.
  • The Case for Freight NEEDS– ALASKA

    The Case for Freight NEEDS– ALASKA

    GREATEST The Case for Freight NEEDS– ALASKA Increasing capacity on “The Knik Arm Bridge is transformative to the region. Its multi- our nation’s modal connectivity for the movement of people and freight and transportation the network redundancy and connectivity it provides for safety system will: and security fits perfectly with the department’s mission.” • Unlock Gridlock, —Frank Richards, Deputy Commissioner for Highways and Public Facilities • Generate Jobs, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities • Deliver Freight, • Access Energy, Freight Capacity Needs Knik Arm Bridge—Anchorage, Alaska • Connect Communities Anchorage is a state transportation center. 90% of seaborne container cargo coming to Did you know? the state is landed at the Port of Anchorage. Anchorage International Airport is within 9 hours of 95% of the industrialized world, and is the fifth largest freight airport in the • The amount of freight world for total throughput. The Alaska Railroad hauled in excess of 540,000 passengers moved in this coun- and 6 million tons of freight in 2008. The Knik Arm Bridge is a key component in the fur- try—from milk, tooth- ther development and sophistication of the state’s transportation infrastructure. paste and toilet paper Freight landed at the Port of Anchorage can be expedited much more quickly to northern to sparkplugs, wheat destinations on the Parks Highway by crossing the bridge. The development of a port at and wind turbines—is Point MacKenzie will expand the state’s capacity for export of resources and products expected to double in and will provide staging for future gasline construction or other major resource develop- the next 40 years? ment projects.
  • STATE of ALASKA SEAN PARNELL, Governor DEPARTMENT of FISH and GAME 333 RASPBERRY RD

    STATE of ALASKA SEAN PARNELL, Governor DEPARTMENT of FISH and GAME 333 RASPBERRY RD

    STATE OF ALASKA SEAN PARNELL, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 333 RASPBERRY RD. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99518 DIVISION OF HABITAT PHONE: (907) 267-2342 FAX: (907) 267-2499 January 27, 2012 Mary Lee Plumb-Mentjes U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division (1145) CEPOA-RD 1600 A Street, Suite 110 Anchorage, AK 99501 RE: POA-2005-97 Dear Ms. Plumb-Mentjes: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the above referenced public notice for a proposed bridge spanning Knik Arm between Anchorage and Port MacKenzie. The project has been proposed by the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA). The permit application is for Phase I of the project which includes approach roads on both sides beginning at milepost 9.5 of Port MacKenzie Rd on the Matanuska-Susitna (Ma-Su) Borough side and at the A-C couplet on the Anchorage side, a 1,800 foot long western permanent embankment approach fill in Knik Arm, a 9,200 foot long pile supported bridge, and a 8,900 foot long eastern permanent roadway approach fill in Knik Arm. The ADF&G offers the following comments regarding the proposed bridge. These comments are submitted pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended: 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and constitute the ADF&G’s comments on the referenced activity. The proposed Knik Arm Crossing could have significant direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife resources in the project area. These potential impacts include both short-term construction impacts and long-term impacts to habitat from bridge approach fills, permanent piles, and increased development in the western Mat-Su Borough.
  • A History of Alaska's Mega Projects

    A History of Alaska's Mega Projects

    A History of Alaska’s Mega Projects For the Alaska Conservation Alliance with funds provided by the Alaska Conservation Foundation June 2003 By Ginny Fay, EcoSystems: Economic and Ecological Research 1101 Potlatch Circle Anchorage, Alaska 99503 907/ 333-3568 email: ginnyfay@montana. com Alaska Mega Projects Executive Summary In the 1980s when oil prices were high and the State of Alaska was awash in windfall revenues, the State ventured into a number of large scale infrastructure projects— predominantly agriculture and energy projects. This report gives an overview of the history, costs and benefits of some of the mega projects undertaken by the State of Alaska. Fueled by the flow of oil dollars, Alaska launched into expanding the agricultural sector in the late 1970s. The Legislative Finance Division estimated that $112 million ($192 million 2002 $$) had been appropriated to fund agricultural projects in Alaska from 1978 to 1981. The predominant agricultural projects were the Delta Agricultural Project (Delta I and Delta II), the Seward grain terminal and accompanying railroad cars, Point McKenzie Project, the Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund, and a variety of projects at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and rural agricultural projects. Similar to agriculture, Alaska entered the arena of energy projects on a big scale. In the late 1970s as oil prices rose as a result of the OPEC energy embargo, State coffers swelled while simultaneously, ratepayers’ oil generated electrical power rates climbed. Alaska’s approach to energy project development was to use the windfall oil revenues from high prices to finance electrical projects that would be immune to oil price fluctuations, renewable and sustainable.